Part 98

Similarly, we have lines of descent, as when a man is someone’s father or brother, in which some rules apply to him while others do not. For we read in al-Sahihayn that Sa‘d Ibn Abi Waqqas and ‘Abd Ibn Zam‘ah Ibn al-Aswad brought a dispute before the Prophet (pbuh) concerning the son of Walidah Zam‘ah. For ‘Utbah Ibn Abi Waqgas had sexual relations with her out of wedlock before the time of the Prophet, after which she gave birth to a son. ‘Utbah then said to his brother Sa‘d: “When you come to Makkah, look at Walidah Zam‘ah’s son, and you will see that Iam his father.” It was after this that he and ‘Abd Ibn Zam‘ah [i.e., Zam‘ah’s son]

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 405

brought their dispute over him to the Prophet (pbuh). Sa‘d said: “Oh, Messenger of Allah! My brother ‘Utbah charged me, when I came to Makkah, to look at Walidah Zam‘ah’s son, claiming that he was the boy’s father. So, Oh, Messenger of Allah, do you not see his resemblance to ‘Utbah?” Then ‘Abd Ibn Zam‘ah said: “Oh, Messenger of Allah, [he is] my brother and Walidah’s son [who] was born on my father’s bed.” And seeing the clear resemblance between the boy and “Utbah, the Prophet (pbuh) said: “He is your [relative], Oh, “Abd Ibn Zam‘ah. The boy was indeed born on this man’s bed, and let the whore be stoned.” [Then, speaking to Sawdah, ‘Abd Ibn Zam‘ah’s sister, he said]: “And veil yourself so as not to be seen by him, Sawdah!” He said this because of the boy’s clear resemblance to ‘Utbah [Sawdah’s father]. For the Prophet (pbuh) judged him to be Zam‘<ah’s son since he was born on his bed. And he declared him to be a brother to Zam‘ah’s son, saying: “He is your [relative], “Abd Ibn Zam‘ah.” Sawdah thus became his sister and a joint heir with him, since he was the son of her father Zam‘ah, born on his bed. Then the Prophet (pbuh) commanded her to veil herself in his presence due to the clear resemblance he bore to ‘Utbah.*' For there were two different sorts of evidence relating to him: the bed on which he was born, and the resemblance between him and ‘Utbah. The first of these was the most compelling. However, their resemblance was a public matter, whereas sexual sin is a secret, illicit matter of which no one was to know, and which must be hidden rather than revealed. As he [the Prophet] said: “Let the whore be stoned.” Similarly one might say: “in your mouth is dust,” and “in your mouth is gravel”; that is, “you must not speak openly of sexual immorality, for it is something that Allah abhors.” And since it was possible for her to veil herself in his presence without any harm being done, he commanded her to do so due to the evidence that in his heart, he was not her true brother.

It thus becomes apparent that the same classification may be affirmed in one judgment and negated in another. For he is considered a true brother to her with respect to inheritance, but is nevertheless not considered to be a close enough relation that he would be precluded from marrying her. On the other hand, an illegitimate son, in the view of some scholars of Islam, and likewise Ibn

*' Tt appears that the Prophet wanted to conceal the scandal of their being born of the same father by having the girl Sawdah veil herself in the boy’s presence as if he were not her brother. For, under normal circumstances, there is no need for a girl to veil herself in the presence of male relatives for whom she would not be a potential wife.

mala‘inah, a son of perdition, in the view of all except for those who depart from the consensus, is not classified as a true son when it comes to inheritance; however, he is considered to be a true son with respect to being forbidden to marry certain females in the family.

The term nikah, marriage, comprises marriage in the complete sense, including acontractual agreement and consummation, as when Allah says: “. .. Then marry women of your choice . . .” (4:3); and “So if a husband divorces his wife, he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah . . .” (2:230). In prohibitions, on the other hand, we find marriage referred to in both the complete and the partial senses, such that in some cases only the contractual agreement is forbidden without the inclusion of sexual relations, as when Allah says: “And marry not women whom your fathers married . . .” (4:22). This is because the intention of the one giving the command is to achieve some benefit which would only come about through consummation of a marriage. It is as if one were to say, “buy me some food,” where the intention can only be carried out by making the purchase and collecting the goods. As for the person forbidding some action, he intends to prevent some sort of damage or corruption; for this reason he includes every aspect of what is being forbidden, since its very existence is a cause of corruption. The same applies to matters pertaining to lineage and inheritance, which require marriage in the full sense. However, marriage to a male relative may be precluded based on even the most minor cause, including having nursed from the same woman.

Similarly, anything that has an early stage and a stage of perfection is sometimes negated when its perfection is negated; whereas it is sometimes affirmed when its early stage is affirmed. For example, the term “men” includes all males, even if they are young. Allah says: “. . . If they are brothers and sisters, the male having twice the share of the female . . .” (4:176). However, the term “men” does not include male children in the following saying of Allah: “. .. And of those who, being weak, are ill-treated [and oppressed] men and women, and male children whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors ...’” (4:75). This is due to the fact that hijrah, immigration in the cause of Allah, and jihad are deeds that only the capable can perform. Hence, if the verse were restricted only to men who were weak and ill-treated, then male children would

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 407

be excluded, although they also are weak and ill-treated. Therefore, mentioning male children [by name] was intended to make clear that they were excused for not being able to immigrate and to fight for the sake of Allah. Iman has an early stage and a stage of perfection. It also has an outward aspect and an inward aspect. Accordingly, worldly judgments concerning rights and limitations—such as saving lives, property, and inheritance, as well as worldly punishments—must be based solely on the outward aspect of Iman, not the inward aspect. For it is very difficult, if not impossible, to base them on inward Iman, due to the fact that inward Iman is unknown and uncertain to us. Hence, one cannot punish a hypocrite, even if he thinks that he has no inward Iman.

Indeed, the Prophet (pbuh) used to refrain from punishing hypocrites, for there were some people who did not know that they were hypocrites, as Allah states. And even if he [the Prophet] knew who the hypocrites were, he would not punish them; for his people would have become angry and say, “Muhammad kills his Companions,” which may have alienated some from Islam. This was the case unless hypocrites committed outward, publicly recognized sins. And when the Prophet (pbuh) tried to punish those who did not go to the mosque for congregational prayer, he could not. He was prevented from doing so by the presence of women and children at home, since he had intended to punish each and every person who did not attend the prayers. Commands and prohibitions are related to the early stage of Iman. Therefore, when Allah says: “Oh, you who believe! When you prepare for prayer . . .” (5:6) and similar sayings, He refers to an outward act for all people who are, outwardly, Muslims. It is also an inward address for all people who know about themselves that they believe in the Messenger and put their trust in him, even if they are disobedient and fail to perform the outward and inward obligations. For if the phrase “those who believe” is applicable to them, then there is no dispute; and if it is not, then it is because of their sins. However, their sins would not prevent them from doing good deeds, which, if they actually do them, will be the cause of Allah’s mercy on them. However, if they do not perform good deeds, their punishment is due to their having abandoned Iman. Even the disbeliever is required to obey what is commanded. However, if he does so, these good deeds will not be accepted of him, for Iman is a condition for the acceptance of good deeds. Likewise in the case of the sheer hypocrite, his good deeds will not be acceptable unless he has inner Iman.

If someone has the root of Iman, which is the inner acceptance of Islam [that is, he is in the early stage of Iman], his deeds will be accepted, for he inwardly accepted the necessity of what the Messenger ordered and abandoned what the Messenger prohibited. Related to the perfection of Iman is the promise of Paradise, victory, and safety from Hell. Indeed, this promise concerns him who has performed what he was commanded to do and abandoned what was prohibited. However, he who performs some and neglects some [of the obligatory acts] will be rewarded for what he has done and will be punished for what he has neglected. Such a man will not be classified as “‘a believer who deserves praise without punishment.” It follows that whenever the Messenger negates someone’s Iman, the negation is made by way of a warning or threat that requires a negation of that which merits reward or wards off punishment. Accordingly, the negation of Iman of the people who commit sins, as reported in the Book and the Sunnah, is related to threat and dispraise, but it is related neither to commands and prohibitions nor to worldly judgments.

The names Islam, Iman, and IhsAn are all praiseworthy and desirable names for people who are characterized by them will be safe in the Hereafter. The Prophet (pbuh) made clear that he who has been characterized by Islam, Iman, and Ihsan in the manner that he [the Prophet] indicated will receive an excellent reward. Accordingly, whenever the Prophet (pbuh) negated someone’s Iman or both his Iman and his Islam but did not consider him an unbeliever, he negated these only with respect to reward in the Hereafter, but not with regard to worldly judgments. However, the Mu‘tazilites believed that if the name Iman or Islam is negated of someone, then its parts would be negated accordingly. Hence, the Mu‘tazilites thought that whenever the Prophet (pbuh) negated anyone’s Iman, or both Iman and Islam [as stated earlier], then he has neither Iman nor Islam and such a man should abide in Hell. However, this interpretation contradicts what is in the Book and the Sunnah as well as the consensus of the pious ancestors. For if someone has neither Iman or Islam, then none of the believers’ and Muslims’ rules could be applicable to him; rather, he is considered to be a hypocrite. The Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus [of the Muslim jurists] all agreed on the distinction between someone who does not inwardly believe in what the Prophet (pbuh) said, and the believer who commits a sin. Indeed, the Mu‘tazilites did not distinguish between sinners and hypocrites in terms of the judgments of this world or the Hereafter. This equity is demonstrated in the negation of a man’s Islam and Iman.